You seem to want me to believe Snowden was so disillusioned with our government’s policy that his only recourse was to commit an act of treason against his country. BULLSHIT!
I don't really care what you believe. I've already posted Snowden's comments on his motivation for exposing the governments lies and over-reach. If you choose not to believe them, and want to paint him as a traitor, whilst ignoring the fact that James Clapper lied on oath to Congress, then that's your business.
Though maybe you can go ahead and tell us what you think Snowden's true motivation was?
I’m not painting Snowden as traitor; Snowden created that self-portrait by his own actions.
Snowden’s self-proclaimed motivates as to why, does not negate the fact that he, Snowden, knowingly, with purpose, intent, and full understanding planned and executed actions that fell within the scope of treason against the United States of America; as such, that defines Snowden as a traitor.
SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
Far from aiding our enemies, the NSA whistleblower has exposed our own government's subversion of Americans' rights
Philip Giraldi for the American Conservative, part of the Guardian Comment Network
guardian.co.uk, Monday 22 July 2013
There are a number of narratives being floated by the usual suspects to attempt to demonstrate that Edward Snowden is a traitor who has betrayed secrets vital to the security of the United States. All the arguments being made are essentially without merit. Snowden has undeniably violated his agreement to protect classified information, which is a crime. But in reality, he has revealed only one actual secret that matters, which is the United States government's serial violation of the fourth amendment to the constitution through its collection of personal information on millions of innocent American citizens without any probable cause or search warrant.
That makes Snowden a whistleblower, as he is exposing illegal activity on the part of the federal government. The damage he has inflicted is not against US national security, but rather on the politicians and senior bureaucrats who ordered, managed, condoned, and concealed the illegal activity.
First and foremost among the accusations is the treason claim being advanced by such legal experts as former Vice-President Dick Cheney, Speaker of the House John Boehner, and Senator Dianne Feinstein. The critics are saying that Snowden has committed treason because he has revealed US intelligence capabilities to groups like al-Qaida, with which the United States is at war. Treason is, in fact, the only crime that is specifically named and described in the US constitution, in article III:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
Whether Washington is actually at war with al-Qaida is, of course, debatable since there has been no declaration of war by Congress as required by article I of the constitution. Congress has, however, passed legislation, including the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), empowering the president to employ all necessary force against al-Qaida and "associated" groups; this is what Cheney and the others are relying on to establish a state of war.
But even accepting the somewhat fast and loose standard for being at war, it is difficult to discern where Snowden has been supporting the al-Qaida and "associated groups" enemy. Snowden has had no contact with al-Qaida and he has not provided them with any classified information. Nor has he ever spoken up on their behalf, given them advice, or supported in any way their activities directed against the United States.
The fallback argument that Snowden has alerted terrorists to the fact that Washington is able to read their emails and listen in on their phone conversations – enabling them to change their methods of communication – is hardly worth considering, as groups like al-Qaida have long since figured that out. Osama bin Laden, a graduate in engineering, repeatedly warned his followers not to use phones or the internet, and he himself communicated only using live couriers. His awareness of US technical capabilities was such that he would wear a cowboy hat when out in the courtyard of his villa to make it impossible for him to be identified by hovering drones and surveillance satellites.
Attempts to stretch the treason argument still further by claiming that Snowden has provided classified information to Russia and China are equally wrong-headed, as the US has full and normally friendly diplomatic relations with both Moscow and Beijing. Both are major trading partners. Washington is not at war with either nation and never has been apart from a brief and limited intervention in the Russian civil war in 1918. Nor is there any evidence that Snowden passed any material directly to either country's government or that he has any connection to their intelligence services.
Then there is the broader "national security" argument. It goes something like this: Washington will no longer be able to spy on enemies and competitors in the world because Snowden has revealed the sources and methods used by the NSA to do so. Everyone will change their methods of communication, and the United States will be both blind and clueless.
Well, one might argue that the White House has been clueless for at least 12 years, but the fact is that the technology and techniques employed by the NSA are not exactly secret. Any reasonably well-educated telecommunications engineer can tell you exactly what is being done, which means the Russians, Chinese, British, Germans, Israelis, and just about everyone else who has an interest is fully aware of what the capabilities of the United States are in a technical sense. This is why they change their diplomatic and military communications codes on a regular basis and why their civilian telecommunications systems have software that detects hacking by organizations like the NSA.
...The NSA's capabilities, though highly classified, have long been known to many in the intelligence community. In 2007, I described the Bush administration's drive to broaden the NSA's activities, noting that:
'The president is clearly seeking open-ended authority to intercept communications without any due process, and he apparently intends to do so in the United States … House Republican leader John Boehner (OH), citing 9/11, has described the White House proposal as a necessary step to 'break down bureaucratic impediments to intelligence collection and analysis.' It is not at all clear how unlimited access to currently protected personal information that is already accessible through an oversight procedure would do that. 'Modernizing' Fisa would enable the government to operate without any restraint. Is that what Boehner actually means?'
It was clear to me that in 2007 Washington already possessed the technical capability to greatly increase its interception of communications networks, but I was wrong in my belief that the government had actually been somewhat restrained by legal and privacy concerns. Operating widely in a permissive extralegal environment had already started six years before, shortly after 9/11, under the auspices of the Patriot Act and the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
...Here in the United States, it remains to be seen whether anyone actually cares enough to do something about the illegal activity while being bombarded with the false claims that the out-of-control surveillance program "has kept us safe". It is interesting to observe in passing that the revelations derived from Snowden's whistleblowing strongly suggest that the hippies and other counter-culture types who, back in the 1960s, protested that the government could not be trusted actually had it right all along.
I'm glad that Snowden chose to stay in a country that is a beacon of freedom and privacy. Plus, he is going to help our economy by restarting the cold war.
I'm glad that Snowden chose to stay in a country that is a beacon of freedom and privacy. Plus, he is going to help our economy by restarting the cold war.
I just hope he isn't gay.
Well, considering the U.S has over 2 million of it's citizens locked up, and is spying on the rest of them, I don't see how it can claim to be a beacon of freedom and privacy either.
I'm glad that Snowden chose to stay in a country that is a beacon of freedom and privacy. Plus, he is going to help our economy by restarting the cold war.
I just hope he isn't gay.
Well, considering the U.S has over 2 million of it's citizens locked up, and is spying on the rest of them, I don't see how it can claim to be a beacon of freedom and privacy either.
Do you think no one should be jailed? Where do we put the criminals? Should they walk free?
~Carter~
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
Do you think no one should be jailed? Where do we put the criminals? Should they walk free?
Depends what you mean by 'criminals'.
Okay now I know what you mean. I agree there are some who are probably innocent and shouldn't be in jail, and some are probably not even criminals. However, that only makes probably a small portion of them.
~Carter~
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
Do you think no one should be jailed? Where do we put the criminals? Should they walk free?
Depends what you mean by 'criminals'.
Okay now I know what you mean. I agree there are some who are probably innocent and shouldn't be in jail, and some are probably not even criminals. However, that only makes probably a small portion of them.
And all those in jail for minor offences, including minor drug offences.
Okay now I know what you mean. I agree there are some who are probably innocent and shouldn't be in jail, and some are probably not even criminals. However, that only makes probably a small portion of them.
And all those in jail for minor offences, including minor drug offences.
That too, definitely.
~Carter~
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
Members of Congress denied access to basic information about NSA
Documents provided by two House members demonstrate how they are blocked from exercising any oversight over domestic surveillance
Glenn Greenwald
guardian.com, Sunday 4 August 2013
Members of Congress have been repeatedly thwarted when attempting to learn basic information about the National Security Agency (NSA) and the secret FISA court which authorizes its activities, documents provided by two House members demonstrate.
From the beginning of the NSA controversy, the agency's defenders have insisted that Congress is aware of the disclosed programs and exercises robust supervision over them. "These programs are subject to congressional oversight and congressional reauthorization and congressional debate," President Obama said the day after the first story on NSA bulk collection of phone records was published in this space. "And if there are members of Congress who feel differently, then they should speak up."
But members of Congress, including those in Obama's party, have flatly denied knowing about them. On MSNBC on Wednesday night, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Ct) was asked by host Chris Hayes: "How much are you learning about what the government that you are charged with overseeing and holding accountable is doing from the newspaper and how much of this do you know?" The Senator's reply:
"The revelations about the magnitude, the scope and scale of these surveillances, the metadata and the invasive actions surveillance of social media Web sites were indeed revelations to me."
But it is not merely that members of Congress are unaware of the very existence of these programs, let alone their capabilities. Beyond that, members who seek out basic information - including about NSA programs they are required to vote on and FISA court (FISC) rulings on the legality of those programs - find that they are unable to obtain it.
Two House members, GOP Rep. Morgan Griffith of Virginia and Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson of Florida, have provided the Guardian with numerous letters and emails documenting their persistent, and unsuccessful, efforts to learn about NSA programs and relevant FISA court rulings.
"If I can't get basic information about these programs, then I'm not able to do my job", Rep. Griffith told me. A practicing lawyer before being elected to Congress, he said that his job includes "making decisions about whether these programs should be funded, but also an oath to safeguard the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which includes the Fourth Amendment."
Rep. Griffith requested information about the NSA from the House Intelligence Committee six weeks ago, on June 25. He asked for "access to the classified FISA court order(s) referenced on Meet the Press this past weekend": a reference to my raising with host David Gregory the still-secret 2011 86-page ruling from the FISA court that found substantial parts of NSA domestic spying to be in violation of the Fourth Amendment as well as governing surveillance statutes.
In that same June 25 letter, Rep. Griffith also requested the semi-annual FISC "reviews and critiques" of the NSA. He stated the rationale for his request: "I took an oath to uphold the United States Constitution, and I intend to do so."
Almost three weeks later, on July 12, Rep. Griffith requested additional information from the Intelligence Committee based on press accounts he had read about Yahoo's unsuccessful efforts in court to resist joining the NSA's PRISM program. He specifically wanted to review the arguments made by Yahoo and the DOJ, as well as the FISC's ruling requiring Yahoo to participate in PRISM.
On July 22, he wrote another letter to the Committee seeking information. This time, it was prompted by press reports that that the FISA court had renewed its order compelling Verizon to turn over all phone records to the NSA. Rep. Griffith requested access to that court ruling.
The Congressman received no response to any of his requests. With a House vote looming on whether to defund the NSA's bulk collection program - it was scheduled for July 25 - he felt he needed the information more urgently than ever. He recounted his thinking to me: "How can I responsibly vote on a program I know very little about?"
On July 23, he wrote another letter to the Committee, noting that it had been four weeks since his original request, and several weeks since his subsequent ones. To date, six weeks since he first asked, he still has received no response to any of his requests (the letters sent by Rep. Griffith can be seen here).
"I know many of my constituents will ask about this when I go home," he said, referring to the August recess when many members of Congress meet with those they represent. "Now that I won't get anything until at least September, what am I supposed to tell them? How can I talk about NSA actions I can't learn anything about except from press accounts?"
Congressman Grayson has had very similar experiences, except that he sometimes did receive responses to his requests: negative ones.
On June 19, Grayson wrote to the House Intelligence Committee requesting several documents relating to media accounts about the NSA. Included among them were FISA court opinions directing the collection of telephone records for Americans, as well as documents relating to the PRISM program.
But just over four weeks later, the Chairman of the Committee, GOP Rep. Mike Rogers, wrote to Grayson informing him that his requests had been denied by a Committee "voice vote".
In a follow-up email exchange, a staff member for Grayson wrote to the Chairman, advising him that Congressman Grayson had "discussed the committee's decision with Ranking Member [Dutch] Ruppersberger on the floor last night, and he told the Congressman that he was unaware of any committee action on this matter." Grayson wanted to know how a voice vote denying him access to these documents could have taken place without the knowledge of the ranking member on the Committee, and asked: "can you please share with us the recorded vote, Member-by-Member?" The reply from this Committee was as follows:
"Thanks for your inquiry. The full Committee attends Business Meetings. At our July 18, 2013 Business Meeting, there were seven Democrat Members and nine Republican Members in attendance. The transcript is classified."
To date, neither Griffith nor Grayson has received any of the documents they requested. Correspondence between Grayson and the Committee - with names of staff members and email addresses redacted - can be read here.
Denial of access for members of Congress to basic information about the NSA and the FISC appears to be common. Justin Amash, the GOP representative who, along with Democratic Rep. John Conyers, co-sponsored the amendment to ban the NSA's bulk collection of Americans' phone records, told CNN on July 31: "I, as a member of Congress, can't get access to the court opinions. I have to beg for access, and I'm denied it if I - if I make that request."
It is the Intelligence Committees of both the House and Senate that exercise primary oversight over the NSA. But as I noted last week, both Committees are, with the exception of a handful of members, notoriously beholden to the NSA and the intelligence community generally.
Its members typically receive much larger contributions from the defense and surveillance industries than non-Committee members. And the two Committee Chairs - Democrat Dianne Feinstein in the Senate and Republican Mike Rogers in the House - are two of the most steadfast NSA loyalists in Congress. The senior Democrat on the House Committee is ardent NSA defender Dutch Ruppersberger, whose district not only includes NSA headquarters in Fort Meade, but who is also himself the second-largest recipient of defense/intelligence industry cash.
Moreover, even when members of the Intelligence Committee learn of what they believe to be serious abuses by the NSA, they are barred by law from informing the public. Two Democratic Committee members in the Senate, Ron Wyden and Mark Udall, spent years warning Americans that they would be "stunned to learn" of the radical interpretations of secret law the Obama administration had adopted in the secret FISA court to vest themselves with extremist surveillance powers.
Yet the two Senators, prohibited by law from talking about it, concealed what they had discovered. It took Edward Snowden's whistleblowing for Americans to learn what those two Intelligence Committee members were so dramatically warning them about.
Finally, all members of Congress - not just those on the Intelligence Committees - are responsible for making choices about the NSA and for protecting the privacy rights and other Constitutional guarantees of Americans. "I did not take an oath to defer to the Intelligence Committee," Rep. Griffith told me. "My oath is to make informed decisions, and I can't do my job when I can't get even the most basic information about these programs."
In early July, Grayson had staffers distribute to House members several slides published by the Guardian about NSA programs as part of Grayson's efforts to trigger debate in Congress. But, according to one staff member, Grayson's office was quickly told by the House Intelligence Committee that those slides were still classified, despite having been published and discussed in the media, and directed Grayson to cease distribution or discussion of those materials in the House, warning that he could face sanctions if he continued.
It has been widely noted that the supremely rubber-stamping FISA court constitutes NSA "oversight" in name only, and that the Intelligence Committees are captured by the agency and constrained to act even if they were inclined to. Whatever else is true, members of Congress in general clearly know next to nothing about the NSA and the FISA court beyond what they read in the media, and those who try to rectify that are being actively blocked from finding out.
I'm glad that Snowden chose to stay in a country that is a beacon of freedom and privacy. Plus, he is going to help our economy by restarting the cold war.
I just hope he isn't gay.
Well, considering the U.S has over 2 million of it's citizens locked up, and is spying on the rest of them, I don't see how it can claim to be a beacon of freedom and privacy either.
Do you think no one should be jailed? Where do we put the criminals? Should they walk free?
Glenn Greenwald on How Secretive DEA Unit Illegally Spies On Americans, Covers Up Actions
August 05, 2013
GLENN GREENWALD: So this should be a huge scandal for the following reason. The essence of the Constitution is that the government cannot obtain evidence or information about you unless it has probable cause to believe that you’ve engaged in a crime and then goes to a court and gets a warrant. And only then is that evidence usable in a prosecution against you. What this secret agency is doing, according to Reuters, it is circumventing that process by gathering all kinds of information without any court supervision, without any oversight at all, using surveillance technologies and other forms of domestic spying. And then, when it gets this information that it believes it can be used in a criminal prosecution, it knows that that information can’t be used in a criminal prosecution because it’s been acquired outside of the legal and constitutional process, so they cover up how they really got it, and they pretend—they make it seem as though they really got it through legal and normal means, by then going back and retracing the investigation, once they already have it, and re-acquiring it so that it looks to defense counsel and even to judges and prosecutors like it really was done in the constitutionally permissible way. So they’re prosecuting people and putting people in prison for using evidence that they’ve acquired illegally, which they’re then covering up and lying about and deceiving courts into believing was actually acquired constitutionally. It’s a full-frontal assault on the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments and on the integrity of the judicial process, because they’re deceiving everyone involved in criminal prosecutions about how this information has been obtained.
I'm glad that Snowden chose to stay in a country that is a beacon of freedom and privacy. Plus, he is going to help our economy by restarting the cold war.
I just hope he isn't gay.
Well, considering the U.S has over 2 million of it's citizens locked up, and is spying on the rest of them, I don't see how it can claim to be a beacon of freedom and privacy either.
Whether you agree with them or not, there is an established set of rules for our society. If you follow the rules, it is the land of the free.
I'm glad that Snowden chose to stay in a country that is a beacon of freedom and privacy. Plus, he is going to help our economy by restarting the cold war.
I just hope he isn't gay.
Well, considering the U.S has over 2 million of it's citizens locked up, and is spying on the rest of them, I don't see how it can claim to be a beacon of freedom and privacy either.
Whether you agree with them or not, there is an established set of rules for our society. If you follow the rules, it is the land of the free.
That could be said about anywhere....including Russia.
That could be said about anywhere....including Russia.
I'm not the one claiming he is a hero for calling out America and then staying silent on him moving to China and then Russia for good. (i don't know what camp you fall into).
Why didn't he go to Iceland in the first place? This guy is either super naive or a flat out spy.
That could be said about anywhere....including Russia.
I'm not the one claiming he is a hero for calling out America and then staying silent on him moving to China and then Russia for good. (i don't know what camp you fall into).
Why didn't he go to Iceland in the first place? This guy is either super naive or a flat out spy.
He's already explained his reasons for going to HK instead of to Iceland. Have you not been paying attention?
I'm glad that Snowden chose to stay in a country that is a beacon of freedom and privacy. Plus, he is going to help our economy by restarting the cold war.
I just hope he isn't gay.
Well, considering the U.S has over 2 million of it's citizens locked up, and is spying on the rest of them, I don't see how it can claim to be a beacon of freedom and privacy either.
Whether you agree with them or not, there is an established set of rules for our society. If you follow the rules, it is the land of the free.
Except the government aren't following the rules. See the Greenwald piece I posted above from Democracy Now.
It's about time the U.N withdrew the U.S's power of automatic veto. They've been abusing it for far too long.
http://rt.com/news/journalist-thousands ... ments-143/ 'On Monday, foreign ministers of the South American trade bloc Mercosur raised the issue of alleged NSA surveillance throughout Latin America with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.
The ministers discussed with Ban a statement adopted by the bloc on July 12 following a summit in Montevideo, Uruguay. The statement called for UN members to propose ways to halt spying and potentially pursue sanctions against the United States.
But doing so would be impossible under the current framework, as only the Security Council can impose legally binding sanctions and the US holds veto privilege over any such resolution as a permanent member of the council.'
That could be said about anywhere....including Russia.
I'm not the one claiming he is a hero for calling out America and then staying silent on him moving to China and then Russia for good. (i don't know what camp you fall into).
Why didn't he go to Iceland in the first place? This guy is either super naive or a flat out spy.
He's already explained his reasons for going to HK instead of to Iceland. Have you not been paying attention?
Pretty dumb reasons as it turns out. There is no reason to justify his reason or reasoning.
Let's see ... I just stole a bunch of info from the US ... I want to end up in Ecuador or Iceland ... :think: ... now I just need to figure out how to get there ..
:think:
I got it! I'm going to hop on a plane to a city surrounded by China, blow all my cash in a few weeks at a 5 star hotel ... and then I'm going to hop on a aeroplane to the former / current U.S.S.R!!!
Brilliant!
Or how about a plan B? Like saving your money and buying a direct ticket to Ecuador or Iceland? Instead of going to the two main countries in the world that would like to get their hands on the info you stole?
It looks like Edward Snowden is going to have to find a new email service as the one he supposedly used -- Lavabit -- has abruptly closed its doors. The company's owner, Ladar Levison, posted an open letter on the site today, saying, "I have been forced to make a difficult decision: to become complicit in crimes against the American people or walk away from nearly ten years of hard work by shutting down Lavabit." Levison also claimed to be unable to speak to the specifics surrounding the situation, stating that a Congressionally approved gag order prevented him from doing so. While Lavabit's situation seems pretty dire, it might not be curtains just yet. In his message, Levison stated that he would take his fight to reinstate Lavabit to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Pretty dumb reasons as it turns out. There is no reason to justify his reason or reasoning.
Let's see ... I just stole a bunch of info from the US ... I want to end up in Ecuador or Iceland ... :think: ... now I just need to figure out how to get there ..
:think:
I got it! I'm going to hop on a plane to a city surrounded by China, blow all my cash in a few weeks at a 5 star hotel ... and then I'm going to hop on a aeroplane to the former / current U.S.S.R!!!
Brilliant!
Or how about a plan B? Like saving your money and buying a direct ticket to Ecuador or Iceland? Instead of going to the two main countries in the world that would like to get their hands on the info you stole?
Question:
User avatar: ewenmacaskill
17 June 2013 3:07pm
I should have asked you this when I saw you but never got round to it........Why did you just not fly direct to Iceland if that is your preferred country for asylum?
Answer:
"Leaving the US was an incredible risk, as NSA employees must declare their foreign travel 30 days in advance and are monitored. There was a distinct possibility I would be interdicted en route, so I had to travel with no advance booking to a country with the cultural and legal framework to allow me to work without being immediately detained. Hong Kong provided that. Iceland could be pushed harder, quicker, before the public could have a chance to make their feelings known, and I would not put that past the current US administration."
So, if companies refuse to allow the U.S government to use them as platforms to spy on their customers, they'll get shut down - or in this case, the owner will take an ethical stand and close the company down. Shame that Google, MSN, and Facebook didn't stick two fingers up to the government too.
Lavabit email service abruptly shut down citing government interference
Founder of service reportedly used by Edward Snowden said he would not be complicit in 'crimes against the American people'
Spencer Ackerman in Washington
guardian.com, Friday 9 August 2013
The email service reportedly used by surveillance whistleblower Edward Snowden abruptly shut down on Thursday after its owner cryptically announced his refusal to become "complicit in crimes against the American people."
Lavabit, an email service that boasted of its security features and claimed 350,000 customers, is no more, apparently after rejecting a court order for cooperation with the US government to participate in surveillance on its customers. It is the first such company known to have shuttered rather than comply with government surveillance.
"I have been forced to make a difficult decision: to become complicit in crimes against the American people or walk away from nearly ten years of hard work by shutting down Lavabit," founder Ladar Levison wrote on the company's website, reported by Xeni Jardin the popular news site Boing Boing.
Levison said government-imposed restrictions prevented him from explaining what exactly led to his company's crisis point.
"I feel you deserve to know what's going on – the first amendment is supposed to guarantee me the freedom to speak out in situations like this," Levison wrote. "Unfortunately, Congress has passed laws that say otherwise. As things currently stand, I cannot share my experiences over the last six weeks, even though I have twice made the appropriate requests."
Privacy advocates called the move unprecedented. "I am unaware of any situation in which a service provider chose to shut down rather than comply with a court order they felt violated the Constitution," said Kurt Opsahl, a lawyer with the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Silent Circle, another provider of secure online services, announced on Thursday night that it would scrap its own encrypted email offering, Silent Mail. In a blogpost the company said that although it had not received any government orders to hand over information, "the writing is on the wall".
Several technology companies that participate in the National Security Agency's surveillance dragnets have filed legal requests to lift the secrecy restrictions that prevent them from explaining to their customers precisely what it is that they provide to the powerful intelligence service – either wittingly or due to a court order. Yahoo has sued for the disclosure of some of those court orders.
The presiding judge of the secret court that issues such orders, known as the Fisa court, has indicated to the Justice Department that he expects declassification in the Yahoo case. The department agreed last week to a review that will last into September about the issues surrounding the release of that information.
There are few internet and telecommunications companies known to have refused compliance with the NSA for its bulk surveillance efforts, which the NSA and the Obama administration assert are vital to protect Americans. One of them is Qwest Communications, whose former CEO Joseph Nacchio – convicted of insider trading – alleged that the government rejected it for lucrative contracts after Qwest became a rare holdout for post-9/11 surveillance.
"Without the companies' participation," former NSA codebreaker William Binney recently told the Guardian, "it would reduce the collection capability of the NSA significantly."
Snowden was allegedly a Lavabit customer. A Lavabit email address believed to come from Snowden invited reporters to a press conference at Moscow's Sheremetyevo Airport in mid-July.
While Levinson did not say much about the shuttering of his company – he notably did not refer to the NSA, for instance – he did say he intended to mount a legal challenge.
"We've already started preparing the paperwork needed to continue to fight for the Constitution in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals," Levinson wrote. "A favorable decision would allow me resurrect Lavabit as an American company."
He continued: "This experience has taught me one very important lesson: without congressional action or a strong judicial precedent, I would strongly recommend against anyone trusting their private data to a company with physical ties to the United States."
Opsahl noted that the fact that Levinson was appealing a case before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals indicated the government had a court order for Lavabit's data.
"It's taking a very bold stand, one that I'm sure will have financial ramifications," Opsahl said.
"There should be more transparency around this. There's probably no harm to the national security of the United States to have it publicly revealed what are the legal issues here," Opsahl continued.
The justice department said it had no comment to make. Representatives from the NSA, White House and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence did not immediately reply to a request for comment.
'They are legally compelled to comply and maintain their silence in regard to specifics of the program, but that does not comply them from ethical obligation. If for example Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Apple refused to provide this cooperation with the Intelligence Community, what do you think the government would do? Shut them down?'
Martin Luther King
April 16, 1963
'One who breaks an unjust law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.'
wow. who is complicit with crimes against the American people?
certainly not Lavabit, but the US government. the crime is forcing legit business' to shut down and all their customers can get bent. They throw a gag order on you and break you.
'One who breaks an unjust law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.'
Then doesn't this mean Snowden should come back and face imprisonment, expressing the highest respect for the law?
By the way, Obama said today that Snowden can come back and face trial if he [Snowden] believes what he did was right, or something along those lines.
~Carter~
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 35,679
hes getting his 15 minutes. it was HE himself who outed him. Did he reasonably expect he could travel freely from then on with his GOVERNMENT issued passport? He should have kept his fucking mouth shut and went where he felt he wanted to end up.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Then doesn't this mean Snowden should come back and face imprisonment, expressing the highest respect for the law?
No, it doesn't. Why would he choose imprisonment over freedom? And he's already explained his position on this. Have you not been paying attention?
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/j ... 25b2ebf321 Edward Snowden:'...the US Government, just as they did with other whistleblowers, immediately and predictably destroyed any possibility of a fair trial at home, openly declaring me guilty of treason and that the disclosure of secret, criminal, and even unconstitutional acts is an unforgivable crime. That's not justice, and it would be foolish to volunteer yourself to it if you can do more good outside of prison than in it.'
Why? So that your government could continue lying to you, and spying on you, in breach of the Constitution? You think everyone should keep their fucking mouths shut in the face of government lies and criminality, including Wikileaks, Daniel Ellsberg, and Woodward & Bernstein, e.t.c.? What about when Ed Vedder criticizes your government? Should he keep his fucking mouth shut too?
Then doesn't this mean Snowden should come back and face imprisonment, expressing the highest respect for the law?
No, it doesn't. Why would he choose imprisonment over freedom? And he's already explained his position on this. Have you not been paying attention?
Yes.
But you used MLKJr's quote, which would mean that in this situation Snowden should follow that same philosophy as well. Because if he believes he did the right thing, then going to jail wouldn't mean anything because he knows he was right; he did the right thing; he is not in the wrong; Let him be a martyr or hero.
~Carter~
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
Then doesn't this mean Snowden should come back and face imprisonment, expressing the highest respect for the law?
No, it doesn't. Why would he choose imprisonment over freedom? And he's already explained his position on this. Have you not been paying attention?
Yes.
But you used MLKJr's quote, which would mean that in this situation Snowden should follow that same philosophy as well. Because if he believes he did the right thing, then going to jail wouldn't mean anything because he knows he was right; he did the right thing; he is not in the wrong; Let him be a martyr or hero.
Because at it stands, he's sacrificed nothing, right?
Comments
I’m not painting Snowden as traitor; Snowden created that self-portrait by his own actions.
Snowden’s self-proclaimed motivates as to why, does not negate the fact that he, Snowden, knowingly, with purpose, intent, and full understanding planned and executed actions that fell within the scope of treason against the United States of America; as such, that defines Snowden as a traitor.
Edward Snowden is no 'traitor'
Far from aiding our enemies, the NSA whistleblower has exposed our own government's subversion of Americans' rights
Philip Giraldi for the American Conservative, part of the Guardian Comment Network
guardian.co.uk, Monday 22 July 2013
There are a number of narratives being floated by the usual suspects to attempt to demonstrate that Edward Snowden is a traitor who has betrayed secrets vital to the security of the United States. All the arguments being made are essentially without merit. Snowden has undeniably violated his agreement to protect classified information, which is a crime. But in reality, he has revealed only one actual secret that matters, which is the United States government's serial violation of the fourth amendment to the constitution through its collection of personal information on millions of innocent American citizens without any probable cause or search warrant.
That makes Snowden a whistleblower, as he is exposing illegal activity on the part of the federal government. The damage he has inflicted is not against US national security, but rather on the politicians and senior bureaucrats who ordered, managed, condoned, and concealed the illegal activity.
First and foremost among the accusations is the treason claim being advanced by such legal experts as former Vice-President Dick Cheney, Speaker of the House John Boehner, and Senator Dianne Feinstein. The critics are saying that Snowden has committed treason because he has revealed US intelligence capabilities to groups like al-Qaida, with which the United States is at war. Treason is, in fact, the only crime that is specifically named and described in the US constitution, in article III:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
Whether Washington is actually at war with al-Qaida is, of course, debatable since there has been no declaration of war by Congress as required by article I of the constitution. Congress has, however, passed legislation, including the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), empowering the president to employ all necessary force against al-Qaida and "associated" groups; this is what Cheney and the others are relying on to establish a state of war.
But even accepting the somewhat fast and loose standard for being at war, it is difficult to discern where Snowden has been supporting the al-Qaida and "associated groups" enemy. Snowden has had no contact with al-Qaida and he has not provided them with any classified information. Nor has he ever spoken up on their behalf, given them advice, or supported in any way their activities directed against the United States.
The fallback argument that Snowden has alerted terrorists to the fact that Washington is able to read their emails and listen in on their phone conversations – enabling them to change their methods of communication – is hardly worth considering, as groups like al-Qaida have long since figured that out. Osama bin Laden, a graduate in engineering, repeatedly warned his followers not to use phones or the internet, and he himself communicated only using live couriers. His awareness of US technical capabilities was such that he would wear a cowboy hat when out in the courtyard of his villa to make it impossible for him to be identified by hovering drones and surveillance satellites.
Attempts to stretch the treason argument still further by claiming that Snowden has provided classified information to Russia and China are equally wrong-headed, as the US has full and normally friendly diplomatic relations with both Moscow and Beijing. Both are major trading partners. Washington is not at war with either nation and never has been apart from a brief and limited intervention in the Russian civil war in 1918. Nor is there any evidence that Snowden passed any material directly to either country's government or that he has any connection to their intelligence services.
Then there is the broader "national security" argument. It goes something like this: Washington will no longer be able to spy on enemies and competitors in the world because Snowden has revealed the sources and methods used by the NSA to do so. Everyone will change their methods of communication, and the United States will be both blind and clueless.
Well, one might argue that the White House has been clueless for at least 12 years, but the fact is that the technology and techniques employed by the NSA are not exactly secret. Any reasonably well-educated telecommunications engineer can tell you exactly what is being done, which means the Russians, Chinese, British, Germans, Israelis, and just about everyone else who has an interest is fully aware of what the capabilities of the United States are in a technical sense. This is why they change their diplomatic and military communications codes on a regular basis and why their civilian telecommunications systems have software that detects hacking by organizations like the NSA.
...The NSA's capabilities, though highly classified, have long been known to many in the intelligence community. In 2007, I described the Bush administration's drive to broaden the NSA's activities, noting that:
'The president is clearly seeking open-ended authority to intercept communications without any due process, and he apparently intends to do so in the United States … House Republican leader John Boehner (OH), citing 9/11, has described the White House proposal as a necessary step to 'break down bureaucratic impediments to intelligence collection and analysis.' It is not at all clear how unlimited access to currently protected personal information that is already accessible through an oversight procedure would do that. 'Modernizing' Fisa would enable the government to operate without any restraint. Is that what Boehner actually means?'
It was clear to me that in 2007 Washington already possessed the technical capability to greatly increase its interception of communications networks, but I was wrong in my belief that the government had actually been somewhat restrained by legal and privacy concerns. Operating widely in a permissive extralegal environment had already started six years before, shortly after 9/11, under the auspices of the Patriot Act and the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
...Here in the United States, it remains to be seen whether anyone actually cares enough to do something about the illegal activity while being bombarded with the false claims that the out-of-control surveillance program "has kept us safe". It is interesting to observe in passing that the revelations derived from Snowden's whistleblowing strongly suggest that the hippies and other counter-culture types who, back in the 1960s, protested that the government could not be trusted actually had it right all along.
I just hope he isn't gay.
Well, considering the U.S has over 2 million of it's citizens locked up, and is spying on the rest of them, I don't see how it can claim to be a beacon of freedom and privacy either.
Do you think no one should be jailed? Where do we put the criminals? Should they walk free?
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
Depends what you mean by 'criminals'.
Okay now I know what you mean. I agree there are some who are probably innocent and shouldn't be in jail, and some are probably not even criminals. However, that only makes probably a small portion of them.
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
And all those in jail for minor offences, including minor drug offences.
That too, definitely.
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... ied-access
Members of Congress denied access to basic information about NSA
Documents provided by two House members demonstrate how they are blocked from exercising any oversight over domestic surveillance
Glenn Greenwald
guardian.com, Sunday 4 August 2013
Members of Congress have been repeatedly thwarted when attempting to learn basic information about the National Security Agency (NSA) and the secret FISA court which authorizes its activities, documents provided by two House members demonstrate.
From the beginning of the NSA controversy, the agency's defenders have insisted that Congress is aware of the disclosed programs and exercises robust supervision over them. "These programs are subject to congressional oversight and congressional reauthorization and congressional debate," President Obama said the day after the first story on NSA bulk collection of phone records was published in this space. "And if there are members of Congress who feel differently, then they should speak up."
But members of Congress, including those in Obama's party, have flatly denied knowing about them. On MSNBC on Wednesday night, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Ct) was asked by host Chris Hayes: "How much are you learning about what the government that you are charged with overseeing and holding accountable is doing from the newspaper and how much of this do you know?" The Senator's reply:
"The revelations about the magnitude, the scope and scale of these surveillances, the metadata and the invasive actions surveillance of social media Web sites were indeed revelations to me."
But it is not merely that members of Congress are unaware of the very existence of these programs, let alone their capabilities. Beyond that, members who seek out basic information - including about NSA programs they are required to vote on and FISA court (FISC) rulings on the legality of those programs - find that they are unable to obtain it.
Two House members, GOP Rep. Morgan Griffith of Virginia and Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson of Florida, have provided the Guardian with numerous letters and emails documenting their persistent, and unsuccessful, efforts to learn about NSA programs and relevant FISA court rulings.
"If I can't get basic information about these programs, then I'm not able to do my job", Rep. Griffith told me. A practicing lawyer before being elected to Congress, he said that his job includes "making decisions about whether these programs should be funded, but also an oath to safeguard the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which includes the Fourth Amendment."
Rep. Griffith requested information about the NSA from the House Intelligence Committee six weeks ago, on June 25. He asked for "access to the classified FISA court order(s) referenced on Meet the Press this past weekend": a reference to my raising with host David Gregory the still-secret 2011 86-page ruling from the FISA court that found substantial parts of NSA domestic spying to be in violation of the Fourth Amendment as well as governing surveillance statutes.
In that same June 25 letter, Rep. Griffith also requested the semi-annual FISC "reviews and critiques" of the NSA. He stated the rationale for his request: "I took an oath to uphold the United States Constitution, and I intend to do so."
Almost three weeks later, on July 12, Rep. Griffith requested additional information from the Intelligence Committee based on press accounts he had read about Yahoo's unsuccessful efforts in court to resist joining the NSA's PRISM program. He specifically wanted to review the arguments made by Yahoo and the DOJ, as well as the FISC's ruling requiring Yahoo to participate in PRISM.
On July 22, he wrote another letter to the Committee seeking information. This time, it was prompted by press reports that that the FISA court had renewed its order compelling Verizon to turn over all phone records to the NSA. Rep. Griffith requested access to that court ruling.
The Congressman received no response to any of his requests. With a House vote looming on whether to defund the NSA's bulk collection program - it was scheduled for July 25 - he felt he needed the information more urgently than ever. He recounted his thinking to me: "How can I responsibly vote on a program I know very little about?"
On July 23, he wrote another letter to the Committee, noting that it had been four weeks since his original request, and several weeks since his subsequent ones. To date, six weeks since he first asked, he still has received no response to any of his requests (the letters sent by Rep. Griffith can be seen here).
"I know many of my constituents will ask about this when I go home," he said, referring to the August recess when many members of Congress meet with those they represent. "Now that I won't get anything until at least September, what am I supposed to tell them? How can I talk about NSA actions I can't learn anything about except from press accounts?"
Congressman Grayson has had very similar experiences, except that he sometimes did receive responses to his requests: negative ones.
On June 19, Grayson wrote to the House Intelligence Committee requesting several documents relating to media accounts about the NSA. Included among them were FISA court opinions directing the collection of telephone records for Americans, as well as documents relating to the PRISM program.
But just over four weeks later, the Chairman of the Committee, GOP Rep. Mike Rogers, wrote to Grayson informing him that his requests had been denied by a Committee "voice vote".
In a follow-up email exchange, a staff member for Grayson wrote to the Chairman, advising him that Congressman Grayson had "discussed the committee's decision with Ranking Member [Dutch] Ruppersberger on the floor last night, and he told the Congressman that he was unaware of any committee action on this matter." Grayson wanted to know how a voice vote denying him access to these documents could have taken place without the knowledge of the ranking member on the Committee, and asked: "can you please share with us the recorded vote, Member-by-Member?" The reply from this Committee was as follows:
"Thanks for your inquiry. The full Committee attends Business Meetings. At our July 18, 2013 Business Meeting, there were seven Democrat Members and nine Republican Members in attendance. The transcript is classified."
To date, neither Griffith nor Grayson has received any of the documents they requested. Correspondence between Grayson and the Committee - with names of staff members and email addresses redacted - can be read here.
Denial of access for members of Congress to basic information about the NSA and the FISC appears to be common. Justin Amash, the GOP representative who, along with Democratic Rep. John Conyers, co-sponsored the amendment to ban the NSA's bulk collection of Americans' phone records, told CNN on July 31: "I, as a member of Congress, can't get access to the court opinions. I have to beg for access, and I'm denied it if I - if I make that request."
It is the Intelligence Committees of both the House and Senate that exercise primary oversight over the NSA. But as I noted last week, both Committees are, with the exception of a handful of members, notoriously beholden to the NSA and the intelligence community generally.
Its members typically receive much larger contributions from the defense and surveillance industries than non-Committee members. And the two Committee Chairs - Democrat Dianne Feinstein in the Senate and Republican Mike Rogers in the House - are two of the most steadfast NSA loyalists in Congress. The senior Democrat on the House Committee is ardent NSA defender Dutch Ruppersberger, whose district not only includes NSA headquarters in Fort Meade, but who is also himself the second-largest recipient of defense/intelligence industry cash.
Moreover, even when members of the Intelligence Committee learn of what they believe to be serious abuses by the NSA, they are barred by law from informing the public. Two Democratic Committee members in the Senate, Ron Wyden and Mark Udall, spent years warning Americans that they would be "stunned to learn" of the radical interpretations of secret law the Obama administration had adopted in the secret FISA court to vest themselves with extremist surveillance powers.
Yet the two Senators, prohibited by law from talking about it, concealed what they had discovered. It took Edward Snowden's whistleblowing for Americans to learn what those two Intelligence Committee members were so dramatically warning them about.
Finally, all members of Congress - not just those on the Intelligence Committees - are responsible for making choices about the NSA and for protecting the privacy rights and other Constitutional guarantees of Americans. "I did not take an oath to defer to the Intelligence Committee," Rep. Griffith told me. "My oath is to make informed decisions, and I can't do my job when I can't get even the most basic information about these programs."
In early July, Grayson had staffers distribute to House members several slides published by the Guardian about NSA programs as part of Grayson's efforts to trigger debate in Congress. But, according to one staff member, Grayson's office was quickly told by the House Intelligence Committee that those slides were still classified, despite having been published and discussed in the media, and directed Grayson to cease distribution or discussion of those materials in the House, warning that he could face sanctions if he continued.
It has been widely noted that the supremely rubber-stamping FISA court constitutes NSA "oversight" in name only, and that the Intelligence Committees are captured by the agency and constrained to act even if they were inclined to. Whatever else is true, members of Congress in general clearly know next to nothing about the NSA and the FISA court beyond what they read in the media, and those who try to rectify that are being actively blocked from finding out.
You should check out this movie http://www.thehouseilivein.org/
I think it should be required viewing.
Glenn Greenwald on How Secretive DEA Unit Illegally Spies On Americans, Covers Up Actions
August 05, 2013
GLENN GREENWALD: So this should be a huge scandal for the following reason. The essence of the Constitution is that the government cannot obtain evidence or information about you unless it has probable cause to believe that you’ve engaged in a crime and then goes to a court and gets a warrant. And only then is that evidence usable in a prosecution against you. What this secret agency is doing, according to Reuters, it is circumventing that process by gathering all kinds of information without any court supervision, without any oversight at all, using surveillance technologies and other forms of domestic spying. And then, when it gets this information that it believes it can be used in a criminal prosecution, it knows that that information can’t be used in a criminal prosecution because it’s been acquired outside of the legal and constitutional process, so they cover up how they really got it, and they pretend—they make it seem as though they really got it through legal and normal means, by then going back and retracing the investigation, once they already have it, and re-acquiring it so that it looks to defense counsel and even to judges and prosecutors like it really was done in the constitutionally permissible way. So they’re prosecuting people and putting people in prison for using evidence that they’ve acquired illegally, which they’re then covering up and lying about and deceiving courts into believing was actually acquired constitutionally. It’s a full-frontal assault on the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments and on the integrity of the judicial process, because they’re deceiving everyone involved in criminal prosecutions about how this information has been obtained.
That could be said about anywhere....including Russia.
Why didn't he go to Iceland in the first place? This guy is either super naive or a flat out spy.
He's already explained his reasons for going to HK instead of to Iceland. Have you not been paying attention?
Except the government aren't following the rules. See the Greenwald piece I posted above from Democracy Now.
http://rt.com/news/journalist-thousands ... ments-143/
'On Monday, foreign ministers of the South American trade bloc Mercosur raised the issue of alleged NSA surveillance throughout Latin America with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.
The ministers discussed with Ban a statement adopted by the bloc on July 12 following a summit in Montevideo, Uruguay. The statement called for UN members to propose ways to halt spying and potentially pursue sanctions against the United States.
But doing so would be impossible under the current framework, as only the Security Council can impose legally binding sanctions and the US holds veto privilege over any such resolution as a permanent member of the council.'
Let's see ... I just stole a bunch of info from the US ... I want to end up in Ecuador or Iceland ... :think: ... now I just need to figure out how to get there ..
:think:
I got it! I'm going to hop on a plane to a city surrounded by China, blow all my cash in a few weeks at a 5 star hotel ... and then I'm going to hop on a aeroplane to the former / current U.S.S.R!!!
Brilliant!
Or how about a plan B? Like saving your money and buying a direct ticket to Ecuador or Iceland? Instead of going to the two main countries in the world that would like to get their hands on the info you stole?
http://www.engadget.com/2013/08/08/lavabit-shuts-down/ (posted already?)
It looks like Edward Snowden is going to have to find a new email service as the one he supposedly used -- Lavabit -- has abruptly closed its doors. The company's owner, Ladar Levison, posted an open letter on the site today, saying, "I have been forced to make a difficult decision: to become complicit in crimes against the American people or walk away from nearly ten years of hard work by shutting down Lavabit." Levison also claimed to be unable to speak to the specifics surrounding the situation, stating that a Congressionally approved gag order prevented him from doing so. While Lavabit's situation seems pretty dire, it might not be curtains just yet. In his message, Levison stated that he would take his fight to reinstate Lavabit to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/j ... 25b2ebf321
Edward Snowden: NSA whistleblower answers reader questions
theguardian.com, Monday 17 June, 2013
Question:
User avatar: ewenmacaskill
17 June 2013 3:07pm
I should have asked you this when I saw you but never got round to it........Why did you just not fly direct to Iceland if that is your preferred country for asylum?
Answer:
"Leaving the US was an incredible risk, as NSA employees must declare their foreign travel 30 days in advance and are monitored. There was a distinct possibility I would be interdicted en route, so I had to travel with no advance booking to a country with the cultural and legal framework to allow me to work without being immediately detained. Hong Kong provided that. Iceland could be pushed harder, quicker, before the public could have a chance to make their feelings known, and I would not put that past the current US administration."
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2 ... rd-snowden
Lavabit email service abruptly shut down citing government interference
Founder of service reportedly used by Edward Snowden said he would not be complicit in 'crimes against the American people'
Spencer Ackerman in Washington
guardian.com, Friday 9 August 2013
The email service reportedly used by surveillance whistleblower Edward Snowden abruptly shut down on Thursday after its owner cryptically announced his refusal to become "complicit in crimes against the American people."
Lavabit, an email service that boasted of its security features and claimed 350,000 customers, is no more, apparently after rejecting a court order for cooperation with the US government to participate in surveillance on its customers. It is the first such company known to have shuttered rather than comply with government surveillance.
"I have been forced to make a difficult decision: to become complicit in crimes against the American people or walk away from nearly ten years of hard work by shutting down Lavabit," founder Ladar Levison wrote on the company's website, reported by Xeni Jardin the popular news site Boing Boing.
Levison said government-imposed restrictions prevented him from explaining what exactly led to his company's crisis point.
"I feel you deserve to know what's going on – the first amendment is supposed to guarantee me the freedom to speak out in situations like this," Levison wrote. "Unfortunately, Congress has passed laws that say otherwise. As things currently stand, I cannot share my experiences over the last six weeks, even though I have twice made the appropriate requests."
Privacy advocates called the move unprecedented. "I am unaware of any situation in which a service provider chose to shut down rather than comply with a court order they felt violated the Constitution," said Kurt Opsahl, a lawyer with the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Silent Circle, another provider of secure online services, announced on Thursday night that it would scrap its own encrypted email offering, Silent Mail. In a blogpost the company said that although it had not received any government orders to hand over information, "the writing is on the wall".
Several technology companies that participate in the National Security Agency's surveillance dragnets have filed legal requests to lift the secrecy restrictions that prevent them from explaining to their customers precisely what it is that they provide to the powerful intelligence service – either wittingly or due to a court order. Yahoo has sued for the disclosure of some of those court orders.
The presiding judge of the secret court that issues such orders, known as the Fisa court, has indicated to the Justice Department that he expects declassification in the Yahoo case. The department agreed last week to a review that will last into September about the issues surrounding the release of that information.
There are few internet and telecommunications companies known to have refused compliance with the NSA for its bulk surveillance efforts, which the NSA and the Obama administration assert are vital to protect Americans. One of them is Qwest Communications, whose former CEO Joseph Nacchio – convicted of insider trading – alleged that the government rejected it for lucrative contracts after Qwest became a rare holdout for post-9/11 surveillance.
"Without the companies' participation," former NSA codebreaker William Binney recently told the Guardian, "it would reduce the collection capability of the NSA significantly."
Snowden was allegedly a Lavabit customer. A Lavabit email address believed to come from Snowden invited reporters to a press conference at Moscow's Sheremetyevo Airport in mid-July.
While Levinson did not say much about the shuttering of his company – he notably did not refer to the NSA, for instance – he did say he intended to mount a legal challenge.
"We've already started preparing the paperwork needed to continue to fight for the Constitution in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals," Levinson wrote. "A favorable decision would allow me resurrect Lavabit as an American company."
He continued: "This experience has taught me one very important lesson: without congressional action or a strong judicial precedent, I would strongly recommend against anyone trusting their private data to a company with physical ties to the United States."
Opsahl noted that the fact that Levinson was appealing a case before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals indicated the government had a court order for Lavabit's data.
"It's taking a very bold stand, one that I'm sure will have financial ramifications," Opsahl said.
"There should be more transparency around this. There's probably no harm to the national security of the United States to have it publicly revealed what are the legal issues here," Opsahl continued.
The justice department said it had no comment to make. Representatives from the NSA, White House and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence did not immediately reply to a request for comment.
17 June 2013
'They are legally compelled to comply and maintain their silence in regard to specifics of the program, but that does not comply them from ethical obligation. If for example Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Apple refused to provide this cooperation with the Intelligence Community, what do you think the government would do? Shut them down?'
Martin Luther King
April 16, 1963
'One who breaks an unjust law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.'
certainly not Lavabit, but the US government. the crime is forcing legit business' to shut down and all their customers can get bent. They throw a gag order on you and break you.
America Fuck Yeah
Then doesn't this mean Snowden should come back and face imprisonment, expressing the highest respect for the law?
By the way, Obama said today that Snowden can come back and face trial if he [Snowden] believes what he did was right, or something along those lines.
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
No, it doesn't. Why would he choose imprisonment over freedom? And he's already explained his position on this. Have you not been paying attention?
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/j ... 25b2ebf321
Edward Snowden: '...the US Government, just as they did with other whistleblowers, immediately and predictably destroyed any possibility of a fair trial at home, openly declaring me guilty of treason and that the disclosure of secret, criminal, and even unconstitutional acts is an unforgivable crime. That's not justice, and it would be foolish to volunteer yourself to it if you can do more good outside of prison than in it.'
That's generous of him.
Sure. He sacrificed a comfortable life in Hawaii with his girlfriend, and a well-paid job, just to get his face in the newspapers.
Why? So that your government could continue lying to you, and spying on you, in breach of the Constitution? You think everyone should keep their fucking mouths shut in the face of government lies and criminality, including Wikileaks, Daniel Ellsberg, and Woodward & Bernstein, e.t.c.? What about when Ed Vedder criticizes your government? Should he keep his fucking mouth shut too?
Yes.
But you used MLKJr's quote, which would mean that in this situation Snowden should follow that same philosophy as well. Because if he believes he did the right thing, then going to jail wouldn't mean anything because he knows he was right; he did the right thing; he is not in the wrong; Let him be a martyr or hero.
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
Because at it stands, he's sacrificed nothing, right?